Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Unskewed Pollman: "Nate Silver can't be trusted because he's thin and might be gay, too"   (examiner.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Baseball Prospectus, career development, Fantasyland, swing vote, Dick Morris, swing states  
•       •       •

4757 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:51 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-10-27 03:22:31 AM  
10 votes:
a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound.

His voice sounds like the voices of teenage boys who were ordered to be castrated by priests and popes, therefore, 4+4=9?

Seriously, GOP, you're just coming down off the rape high; do you really, really want to drag the long written history of conservative religious organizations surgically altering children to make them sound more pleasing? How 'bout you just go play with the vaginal ultrasound probe for the night and think it over, m'kay?
2012-10-27 04:24:43 AM  
7 votes:
Everyone lies to themselves to an extent, but not like this. The right has made it into an art form.

Don't like what the polls say? well head over to unskewedpolls.com where we skew the polls to make you feel better.
what's that? read an article with facts that make your opinion illogical and wrong? well just dismiss it as "biased" and go on with what you were doing!
Oh..The Harvard educated president who worked his way up in life to become exactly what the American dream is supposed to be about, has a few minor beliefs that you disagree with? that's too bad. well just call him a socialist and/or Nazi so you can ignore whatever he says!
2012-10-27 08:34:42 AM  
6 votes:
For how much the right accuses the left of ignoring facts in favor of emotion there is no group on earth who more vigorously eschews solid evidence in favor of "it can't be that way because I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel in my heart of Jesus 'n' Reagan blessed hearts that it just ain't so" than the modern GOP.

For more evidence look at the debate over Voter ID. No matter how many studies are done saying in-person voter fraud is about as prevalent of sightings of Amelia Earhart giving Bigfoot an Albanian Otter Squat on the hood of Elvis' UFO the response from the GOP shills is "I *KNOW* voter fraud is happening! Didn't you see those black guys dressed up in camo??"
2012-10-27 03:58:07 AM  
6 votes:
Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.
2012-10-27 03:54:11 AM  
6 votes:
I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.
2012-10-27 03:23:49 AM  
6 votes:
Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice

It's fun to watch the Right flailing like this.
2012-10-27 11:50:39 AM  
4 votes:
Nate Silver is the one guy I trust to be statistically rigorous on the matter of electoral prediction. Everyone else just sort of dances around the questions of MOE and underlying assumptions, and the fact that he assigns probabilities to the outcomes shows that he understands the mathematics of uncertainty.

Who should we not trust? For starters, a festering pustule who judges Silver based on his appearance. And secondly, any moran who confuses predicting a lead with creating a lead. Having smoke blown up your arse appears to be tea party thing, most thinking people would rather have an accurate picture of the election even if it isn't so favorable for their chosen candidate.
2012-10-27 11:26:42 AM  
4 votes:
a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound.

i236.photobucket.com

THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
2012-10-27 07:40:41 AM  
4 votes:
"He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was. But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election."

Until the gay guy alters reality to show us what we want to hear, he's wrong.
2012-10-27 04:17:22 AM  
4 votes:

log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.


It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.
2012-10-27 12:09:03 PM  
3 votes:

Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


OMG THIS... Having a conversation with my normally sensible stepfather about the media after he went on a DERPfit over matt Lauer. Rattled off several examples of things the media was reporting about Obama, and more importantly what they weren't reporting about Romney.

I challenged him to refute that the media are run by giant (wealthy) corporations who probably skew Republican at the tops levels of management. I said is it a liberal media or is it just an attempt to get people to watch? He thought about it for a moment and finally agreed that I was probably right.

This race has been over for two weeks but they are going to try as hard as possible to keep it close in the minds of voters... er I mean, viewers.
2012-10-27 07:55:52 AM  
3 votes:
Dean Chambers, you are a dumbass.
2012-10-27 03:42:00 AM  
3 votes:
I take everything Dean Chambers has to say with every bit of the seriousness it deserves.

/DNRTFA.
2012-10-27 01:36:38 PM  
2 votes:

Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.


Describes my Dad-in-law to a T.

Dad's a Catholic guy. So that was my husband's indoctrination, too. He refused confirmation, though. But, we got married in the church, but broke our vow that we'd raise them up Catholic. I changed my mind. So did hubby. Back when I believed in a 'god' such as that, I still asked for forgiveness but told god I wasn't raising them in the church.

I was raised up that there was a god, said prayers every night, bargained when grades were due to come out, but no church, no grace before dinner, nothing.

I couldn't see putting my kids' sanity on the line like that. All Christianity starts with 'you are flawed, you're not good enough as is,' and I think original sin is bullschnit.
Realizing that we are prone to make mistakes and have the power within ourselves to choose between right and wrong is ok.
But not the idea that one is an unworthy POS from the get-go, and you must do A, B, andC to escape it is very psychologically damaging. And when it starts young, you beat yourself up for the rest of your life, or denounce your upbringing, both of which hurts.

Hardest thing about being an agnostic parent is having to tell your kids there's no fairy tales to tuck them in with at night, or to allay their fears of dying, or exsisting without clear purpose.

All you can do is show them how utterly amazing and lovely the universe is, and how, for a brief bit of time, you get to share in it. After that, it's unknown, no matter what anyone says.
Just enjoy. Your day will come, and either that's it, or it won't be. Worrying about it hampers your ability to enjoy your life. Feel lucky you're even here, much less not fighting in a war, or starving to death. Do what you can to lift others up, and life is that much sweeter.

Oops. I went off again.

/rant ovah
2012-10-27 12:49:07 PM  
2 votes:
This is as simple as I can make it:

Party ID isn't constant. It's part of what's being surveyed. To "unskew" a poll by adjusting party identification proportions makes a poll less accurate.

This is simple math and statistics. 101 level stuff, actually.

I suspect Chambers and other hyperpartisans are simply reflecting their confirmation biases. Since party ID, for them, is as constant as sports team allegiances, they can't imagine anyone thinking differently.

Guys like Silver, who put the numbers first, may have their own biases. But they make a conscious effort to keep them out of their data, since accuracy is the goal.

Chambers specifically puts his bias in his data, since confirmation is his goal.

Pity guys like that, Farkers. They probably don't even realize what they're doing. They are intellectually lost.
2012-10-27 12:48:30 PM  
2 votes:

simplicimus: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

In my totally unprofessional opinion, during the Presidential Debates, I think Romney lost votes every time he said he agreed with the President. His abrupt turn to the center probably cost him some of the base.



Doubt it. The Republican base is extremely Machiavellian, they accept all manner of dishonesty, just as long as they win. So when Romney tells them that he's severely conservative and then does a NASCAR-like turn to the left, they rationalize it by saying "well we know he's severely conservative, so he's just lying to the liberals to get their votes, and I'm ok with that."

The 'true believers' of the Republican party are all about lying, cheating, stealing, and raping, just as long as they win.
2012-10-27 12:39:09 PM  
2 votes:

simplicimus: Regardless of the attack on Nate Silver, I am astounded that Dick Morris has any credibility with anyone.


AS long as he tells Republican what they want to hear the Republicans will listen to him.
2012-10-27 12:25:44 PM  
2 votes:

randomjsa: I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples.


as noted, you are compltely wrong here. Silver was far more accurate than anyone else in predicting the the primaries, house and senate races in 08 and 10. He didn't merely predict the Obama-McCain race.
2012-10-27 12:24:58 PM  
2 votes:

randomjsa: The subject was Nate Silver

...

...being dismissed because he is thin and effeminate, by the RW site unskewed polls.

what do you think about this critique of Nate Silver by your fellow conservative?

pretty lame right?
2012-10-27 12:11:53 PM  
2 votes:

randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he... Predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.


It is true that there are a lot of people who only learned about 538 during the general election or after, and these are the people who tend to cite this as their main justification for liking Silver.


Silver himself, however, would say that that is not the reason people should put stock in his site and his model. Silver's model *killed it* during the 2008 primaries; my favorite example was when consensus polls had Clinton winning NC, Silver's model had Obama winning by 17, and Obama won by 15 (or thereabouts). His model also drew the "Obama has basically clinched this" conclusion pretty early on, when other models were trying to still say the race was competitive (and this only a week or two after McCain had pulled ahead in Silver's model).

There's also a bit of non-politics awe from 2008 related to the fact that his proprietary baseball model predicted the Tampa Bay Rays would be a 90-win team in 2008 even though they'd sucked for their entire history to that point.
2012-10-27 11:59:09 AM  
2 votes:
You know who else was skinny and kinda gay?

michaelmurray.ca


//Girrrrrrlllllllllll
2012-10-27 11:20:09 AM  
2 votes:

randomjsa: I do think its funny...


dnr;0content
2012-10-27 11:18:43 AM  
2 votes:
Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.
2012-10-27 11:12:17 AM  
2 votes:
i47.tinypic.com
2012-10-27 10:54:35 AM  
2 votes:

Winterlight: Paris1127: What is this I don't even... Do they even have otters in Albania?
 
They even an otter stamp in Albania:
 
[www.poppe-stamps.com image 555x471]


That right there is why the internet is awesome.
2012-10-27 10:44:17 AM  
2 votes:
On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

i49.tinypic.com 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.
2012-10-27 10:30:13 AM  
2 votes:
All this guy (and most of the media really) is doing is setting lots of people up for a huge fall.

There are people I know that had pretty much given up on Romney before the debates. They were ready to accept that they had an awful candidate and were in for another four years of the usurper. Now, I believe that riots and other forms of violence are an actual possibility when reality comes crashing down upon them around 9:30 PM on election night. And nothing changed other than the media wanting to make it look like a horse-race.

And if and when the violence comes, they will all be right there reporting it and wondering how such a terrible thing could happen.

It's really disgusting. I need to get off of this stinking rock.
2012-10-27 09:22:15 AM  
2 votes:
Regardless of the attack on Nate Silver, I am astounded that Dick Morris has any credibility with anyone.
2012-10-27 05:22:17 AM  
2 votes:
i159.photobucket.com

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.
2012-10-27 04:25:14 AM  
2 votes:
Yesterday, my boss said, "Judy, we're just like the people in 'What's the Matter With Kansas.; By supporting the Democratic party, we're going against our own self-interests. Why is that?" Then he said, "Because we care about our country, not ourselves." I think I need a raise. He's not paying me enough to place me up there with him.
2012-10-27 04:13:22 AM  
2 votes:

log_jammin:

Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.


That said, about 48% of the country is going to wake up the next day angry, I guess. We're all being lied to, at least a little bit. Some of us are being lied to about how "both sides are the same so why bother voting." And there are many, many other lies.

My goal is to be one of the people in power lying to you and yours and enjoying the fruits of my lies, which include gout-inducing foods and nubile maidens. Mostly the maidens.
2012-10-27 03:32:27 AM  
2 votes:
Squeaky voiced people are never right. They can't help it. Their squeaky voices automatically shut down all reasonable Republican talking points when they feel threatened. Or, something.
2012-10-28 03:26:28 PM  
1 vote:

abb3w: 2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".

mistersnark: Could I perhaps trouble you to rephrase this second point in plainer English?


So, the ± refers to the confidence interval; it's a function of sample size. There's a decent entry in wikipedia on it. Most polls report one based at the 95% confidence standard, so a poll showing a race of 60%R 40%D and ±3% means that there's statistically about a 47.5% chance of the republican getting 60.0-63.0% of the vote, and 47.5% chance of the republican getting 57.0-60.0% of the vote. The ±3% is typical for polls asking on the order of 1000 people randomly sampled from the whole population.

One of the most common curves in statistics is the Gaussian distribution; one of the parameters of the usual expression of the distribution function is the standard deviation, denoted by a lower case sigma, which effectively scales the axis. The distribution is symmetric, but decreases with distance; about 34% of the distribution falls within zero and one sigma above the midpoint, but only about 13.6 between one and two.

upload.wikimedia.org



Conveniently for rule-of-thumb work, within two sigma on either side of the mean gives 95.4% of the distribution. The actual distribution for polling results isn't exactly a Gaussian (which trails off to infinity, whereas a vote outcome of 107% for one candidate is a bit hinky), but it's something similar enough for rule-of-thumb work in polling where the race isn't worse than 2:1.

So, cut the ±3% in half, and you get 1.5% is the standard deviation "sigma".

Which brings up...

impaler: My calculations give a 50.7% to 49.2% with a 3% margin of error about a 66% 33% chance.


Yeah, in the cold grey light of afternoon and sobriety, sounds right.

For a (60:40)±3 race, anything 50.001% or more for the underdog is 10 percent off from survey, which is 6.6 sigma out -- which is not 13ish, but still one-in-ten-billion Powerball territory. (Lucky me for understating how bad that was the first time.) For a (50.7:49.2)±3 race, that victory threshold is only 0.8ish off from the poll, which is about 0.5 times the sigma distance of 1.5%, which is (yes) somewhere about 30-40% chance for the underdog. Using a statistics package like R will give more precise answers and allow more exact calculations; but knowing a few points on the gaussian cumulative distribution (and not slipping in a careless factor of two) gets to rule-of-thumb understanding that Nate Silver is not pulling these numbers out of his backside.

There's other factors -- the odds of how undecideds break, the flexibility of the electorate's attitudes with time and new news, and so on. Nate's worked most of those into his model, and written up explanations on what he's done, for the curious to read if they care to improve their understanding.

However, political conservatives tend not to value curiosity. Maybe it's just too hard for them.
2012-10-28 02:04:18 AM  
1 vote:

Blowmonkey: Conservatives are flailing because it's becoming apparent they are going to lose again and are creating a narrative that forestalls the inevitable.


What I think you really mean is that they're creating a narrative that allows them to delegitimize the President. *Especially* if he manages to lose the popular vote but still win the EV vote. That's pretty much been their MO from Day One. If he wins, it's because the American people saw through the bullshiat, realized he's a failure, and voted Romney. If Obama loses, it's because either (a) The American people are stupid, easily fooled Takers, or (b) The election was stolen by ACORN and illegal Mexicans voting. 

You can see it everywhere - he's a Marxist! He's not a citizen! Voter Fraud!

In either case, he's not really a legitimate President. They did it with Bill Clinton, too.

/loved Digging Your Scene, btw.
2012-10-27 08:03:34 PM  
1 vote:

DamnYankees: gingerjet: Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...

The odd part is that Nate doesn't come off as gay. He comes off as a big geek. One wonders if this guy is missing his high school days of torturing the math team.

/gay geek

FWIW, IIRC Nate is actually gay. Not that it matters.


I was going after the perception of Nates mannerisms by the right wing stooge. The fact that he is gay doesn't change that.
2012-10-27 07:17:41 PM  
1 vote:

Three Crooked Squirrels:
I heard an interview on NPR and he said he was libertarian leaning, but between the 2 parties, he sides most with the Democrats. Interestingly enough, he said he got into political prognostication around 2005 or so because he was making a living off online poker and Congress made that illegal. He wanted to know which of those bastards was going to get voted out.


'Signal' And 'Noise': Prediction As Art And Science
2012-10-27 06:22:21 PM  
1 vote:
Examiner.com doesn't take much pride in its content, does it?
2012-10-27 06:03:56 PM  
1 vote:
upload.wikimedia.org

What a thin man with a high pitched voice might look like.
2012-10-27 05:02:19 PM  
1 vote:
I suggest everyone answer this douche's poll and provide him the answers he wants to hear. Say you're from Ohio.
2012-10-27 03:16:31 PM  
1 vote:

Frozboz: But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election.

Forget the cookiness of it, does anyone on the right work with an editor? Who writes this garbage?


mmm. cookies.
2012-10-27 03:15:10 PM  
1 vote:

mediablitz: Interesting tweet from Silver yesterday.

His forecast is EXACTLY the same now (state by state for President) as it was in June when he put out his first prediction.

So, BILLIONS of dollars spent to move... nowhere.


This is why I think it might be a good idea to move to federal funding for elections- state elections get money from the state they're running in.

No outside influences, no corporations are people, no super pacs. If one wants to whine about government spending money in a socialist fashion, etc.- just look at all of the money the private sector would still have, were it not spent on election junk. Jobs could be created.
Anyway, it would kill all the cash money that goes into our politics, and the money would be spent in lobbying. Which comes with its own set of problems, but does now, anyway.


/blahblahblah
2012-10-27 03:00:24 PM  
1 vote:
Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this Unskewed Polls business is really just some clever satire, like Conservapedia?
2012-10-27 02:47:46 PM  
1 vote:
The simplest way to determine which polls know what the hell they are talking about and which ones don't is to look at the results. That's plain common sense. If someone tells you it's going to rain 45 times and it rains 2 times, they are stupid. If they say it will rain 45 times and it rains 45 times, the next time they say it's going to rain, you should listen.

Look at the results from the polling during the last election. Nate Silver was closer to the actual outcome than any of the major polls. Only Sam Wang, with the Princeton Election Consortium I think was closer, but his analysis was practically in line with Nate's. Both of these polls have shown Obama with a lead in Electoral Votes throughout the election cycle. They reported the plunge after the first debate, just like the other polls. Conservatives are flailing because it's becoming apparent they are going to lose again and are creating a narrative that forestalls the inevitable.

This happened with the last election too. Conservatives, especially the hard right, only exist in very tight echo chambers that effectively seal them off entirely from reality. Hence the gigantic letdown and unbelievability that ensues when they lose. The tea party was a direct result of this disillusionment, yet they didn't come any closer to reality, they moved further from it.

One day the conservatives are going to have to leave the echo chamber, set down the bibles and the hate and come make nice with the rest of the country. I have no idea if or when this will ever happen.
2012-10-27 02:46:53 PM  
1 vote:
Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?
2012-10-27 02:33:50 PM  
1 vote:
Dean Chambers:

An Internet journalist and commentator, launched his writing career by creating an alternative conservative student newspaper while in college. Dean grew up in what James A. Baker called "the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" and has experienced first-hand the fruits of progressive public policy. Look to Dean's writings to find a uniquely individualist point of view focusing on limited government, individual liberty, and conservative values.

In 2010 Chambers predicted Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, Dino Rossi, John Raese, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck would win...incredibly accurate; especially O'donnell. She lost by double digit numbers.


Nice Jerb.
2012-10-27 02:33:47 PM  
1 vote:

flux: Frozboz: Forget the cookiness of it, does anyone on the right work with an editor? Who writes this garbage?

Editing would be a socialist subversion of the will of the individual.

From today's write-up:

"An incumbent not polling at least 50 percent right now is highly unlikely of winning, because the undecided voters are undecided because they have decided not to vote for the incumbent, but haven't been fully sold on voting for the challenging."


That is perfectly grammared because the challenging is what he was highly unlikely of pointing to the defeat of.

dumbass
2012-10-27 02:19:15 PM  
1 vote:

d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]


I got mine; are you wearing the bra on your head right?
2012-10-27 01:46:55 PM  
1 vote:

fqhollis: [i47.tinypic.com image 400x300]


t7ak.roblox.com
2012-10-27 01:42:39 PM  
1 vote:
So, Nate talks like a queer and his shiat's all retarded?

/ Low hanging fruit
// Took long enough
2012-10-27 01:37:12 PM  
1 vote:
But wait. Dick Morris has an effeminate voice. So does Michele Bachman's husband, whatever his name is. But neither of them are thin. So it's the thinness that Hates Republicans And Therefor America. The gawp has plenty of gheys, but very few thin people. Nate Silver is leading the left's War on Fat People, people!
2012-10-27 01:27:08 PM  
1 vote:

ArcadianRefugee: Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice

It's fun to watch the Right flailing like this.


Especially since their deity on all things taxes (Grover Norquist) fits this description to a T.
2012-10-27 12:55:10 PM  
1 vote:

randomjsa: The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear.


There were an awful lot of Republicans circle-jerking over his predictions around Oct 12th. But go ahead and keep living in this fantasy world of IM SMARTER THAN FRIGGIN MATH.
2012-10-27 12:53:04 PM  
1 vote:

phritz: [24.media.tumblr.com image 400x300]


I think he looks like Baron Harkonnen, and I doubt the lithe body confuses him.
2012-10-27 12:48:24 PM  
1 vote:

simplicimus: I honestly don't know which, if any party, Nate belongs to. It doesn't really matter, he's a good statistician with a proven record.


I heard an interview on NPR and he said he was libertarian leaning, but between the 2 parties, he sides most with the Democrats. Interestingly enough, he said he got into political prognostication around 2005 or so because he was making a living off online poker and Congress made that illegal. He wanted to know which of those bastards was going to get voted out.
2012-10-27 12:45:56 PM  
1 vote:

Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...


Reminds him of the twink sites he regularly visits?
2012-10-27 12:43:06 PM  
1 vote:
The Right Wing is going to have a collective shiat fit on Election Night...

Reality is going to be a biatch for these people. They interviewed some jackass at a Romney rally on NPR earlier this week... He was convinced it was going to be a "Romney Landslide victory" because the polls are all wrong and under sample Republicans.

I don't usually like to kick people when they're down, but...
2012-10-27 12:39:34 PM  
1 vote:

Larry Mahnken: simplicimus: DamnYankees: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Thanks. Seems he has a good sense of humor.

He started as a writer for Baseball Prospectus. He's used to being mocked by anti-intellectuals for relying on data rather than "what you know to be true".


Pretty much. Sports and politics have way too much similarity, and at the end of the day reporters in both fields are very used to going with how things "feel" over what things look like on paper. Obama's campaign is not behaving the way that they expect someone with a clear lead would behave (they are pushing a tight race to GOTV from those who aren't as motivated) and Romney's campaign is pushing that they are looking at a landslide (to try to convince undecided voters that the consensus opinion is that they should vote for him so they can have picked the winner.) If the politicians want to make an argument that doesn't reflect the data they have available, surely it means they know more about what's going on, right?
2012-10-27 12:35:12 PM  
1 vote:

mayIFark: mksmith: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Why would he bother? He's too busy working out new ways to throw the election to Obama, right?

Indirectly, he did. He kind of show how pretty much all reputed sources are same, even though they uses different methods. As he showed it, only 3 calls are different.


I honestly don't know which, if any party, Nate belongs to. It doesn't really matter, he's a good statistician with a proven record.
2012-10-27 12:35:11 PM  
1 vote:
fivethirtyeight and realclearpolitics seem to both get it right most of the time, and are pretty close in their estimates.

unskewedpolls just smells like desperation, and bacon flavored cheezy poofs.
2012-10-27 12:29:15 PM  
1 vote:

randomjsa: unexplained bacon: actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.

So one person reflects the thoughts and feelings of all conservatives? Or just most? I'm just wondering how far we're going to go with "because one person of a particular political persuasion said something it is reflective of the entire group", because if we're taking that all the way then I have a laundry list of things liberals need to answer for here.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?

The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear. I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples. That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.


As no doubt you're aware, the cumulative probability of guessing 49 out of 50 coin tosses correctly, which is what you're saying Silver's 2008 prediction was, is 1/8.881784197001E-16.
2012-10-27 12:16:42 PM  
1 vote:
Headline: The far left turns to Nate Silver for wisdom on the polls

Jesus. Say what you want about the election, but anyone who thinks mainstream Democrats are "far left" by any standard must be choking on their own saliva.
2012-10-27 12:07:31 PM  
1 vote:
So, Mr. Fatty Arbuckle Unskewed Polls attacks Nate Silver, not on his methodology but on his looks and mannerisms? Are there enough facepalms in the world for this?

i6.photobucket.com 

We're through the looking glass, people!
2012-10-27 12:04:12 PM  
1 vote:
not that I

MrBallou: eraser8: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.

I wonder. If Rmoney had been the big underdog, his strategy would have been very different and there's no telling what would have happened. Voters are weird. At least the momentum is in the right direction right now, near the end.



Let me preface the following with saying that I have no belief that Obama sleeping through the debate was some kind of long game, it was a disaster that caused severe damage to his presidential race, and even if he wins, will still have been the thing that damn near cost him the white house.

now, having said that, lets say Obama makes his odds and wins, if that happens, that craptastic debate may have been the single best thing to happen to team Obama this cycle. Romney's cash reserves are huge right now, he is on track for an October worth almost 220 million and that has a LOT to do with the debate showing he had a shot. if he spends all that money and still looses, that's a fortune that might have propped up republicans in the house and senate they didn't get. I mean, they might get some up ticket, but still, I bet they probably would have preferred having those millions themselves. And that ignores all the superpacs that might have otherwise gone balls deep into the house and senate that started putting their money back into the presidential election.

Think about the difference hundreds of millions going into the republican house and senate coffers for a moment, the house and senate landscape could look a lot different then dems picking up in the house and keeping the senate
2012-10-27 11:59:58 AM  
1 vote:

blastoh: unskewedpolls.com?
Is this like Fox: "Fair and Balanced"

Or all the right wing posters I see online with names including the words "Truth" "Reality" "Objective"

Being "honest", "fair", and "balanced" is kinda like being in charge. If you have to constantly remind people of who you are, then you aren't who you think you are.


Republicans are like skinemax films. Because those movies are all the same, they've found they may as well just switch the same 10 words around in their titles, no need to overthink it. Because every Republican argument is the same, why not just plug the same 10 words in as well?

For Skinemax, those words are Passion, Obsession, Sexual, Sensual, Forbidden, Games, Temptation, Secret, Island, Pleasure.

For Repubs: Freedom, Honor, Truth, Fair, Patriot, Liberty, America...yeah nevermind, they don't even have 10 words. But those 7 words combined with "We hate liberals" is everything they've ever written.

msnbcmedia.msn.com

Ever ever ever ever
2012-10-27 11:59:43 AM  
1 vote:
FTFA: "[Nate Silver is] a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. ~Dean Chambers"

i.imgur.com

Sounds to me like somebody really, REALLY needs to come out of the closet.
2012-10-27 11:59:14 AM  
1 vote:
To give some idea of what offends this guy as grossly innacurate: Nate Silver projects Obama is up less than 2% in the popular vote, which he projects means Obama has a 75% chance of winning. Dean Chambers says that Romney is actually up over 4% in the popular vote, which will guarantee a landslide in the electoral college. Nate Silver has been made a living off doing sports and political statistical modeling for nearly a decade. Dean Chambers has no background in mathematics that I can fund, he just knows the numbers "don't feel right" so he's found ways to correct them. Clearly the guy with a long history in the field who says this will be close but one candidate has an advantage is a fool and the guy with no experience saying it will be a total shutout is the more reasonable party.

Oh, and if anyone hadn't noticed, he now says no pollster has accurate numbers: he originally was adjusting other polling firms to match the likely model of Rasmussen, but now he even believes Rasmussen's likely voter model is all wrong and gives Obama a 3 point advantage over what will happen on election day.
2012-10-27 11:54:29 AM  
1 vote:
This clown apparently misses at least three things.

1) Nate's weighing mechanism isn't ultimately based on how much the polls disagree with "his own average", but on how their predictions differed from the election outcome in 2008. As happens, the polls on average were biased below the measurement threshold, but some pollsters consistently gave results further from the final outcome than others, and/or consistently gave results consistently biased D or biased R. Nate normalizes to cancel out this, based on past measurement from electoral outcome.

2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".

3) While Romney's chances have improved considerably from their nadir, they haven't improved to a clear win -- and Silver's odds reports reflected considerably improved chances. Furthermore, the poll results had pretty much stopped improving for Romney as of October 12. Though that may change some more...
2012-10-27 11:45:04 AM  
1 vote:

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.
2012-10-27 11:43:50 AM  
1 vote:

miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.


Can't tell if joking or just stupid.
2012-10-27 11:42:21 AM  
1 vote:

theinsultabot9000: I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.


"Hey guys, if Obama had to face off against Hilary again, he would LOSE!"

"What does that matter? Obama is already the farking president and is on his way to a second term. Are you just fading back into madness because Santorum got paid off and Romney bought his way into the candidacy, only to fark it up again and again?"

"Hilary would SOOOO WASTE HIM."
2012-10-27 11:38:50 AM  
1 vote:
unskewedpolls.com?
Is this like Fox: "Fair and Balanced"

Or all the right wing posters I see online with names including the words "Truth" "Reality" "Objective"

Being "honest", "fair", and "balanced" is kinda like being in charge. If you have to constantly remind people of who you are, then you aren't who you think you are.
2012-10-27 11:38:10 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com
2012-10-27 11:32:15 AM  
1 vote:
Considering the typical projection of right wingnuts, I'm willing to bet that the unskewed polls guy wants to sit on a few unskewed poles.
2012-10-27 11:30:08 AM  
1 vote:

gingerjet: I don't get it. All one has to do is wait until the election to see if Nate is correct or not. Why all the butthurt now?


Are you familiar with the term "lashing out in blind rage?"
2012-10-27 11:28:42 AM  
1 vote:
Add "thin guys" to the List of people conspiring against GOP and therefore America
2012-10-27 11:27:33 AM  
1 vote:

Frederick: Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.

When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a falling out (mother = Italian Catholic / father = German Lutheran). Religion was always by my choice only. I attended a Christian bible school by choice, and quit going by my choice. I attended mass sometimes and youth group because I liked the kids who went to that church. Ultimately I chose to eschew religion and I claim agnostic.

But I can tell you there are cons to being agnostic or religiously void. I feel I am by nature a spiritual person, and I never found a satisfactory outlet for that spirituality. And the older I get the more I feel like I'm missing that outlet.

\I'm sure what I've said was less then helpful -sorry


Check out the Unitarian-Universalists. With them you get the church-like community and spirituality without the dogma.

Or look into Buddhism. You don't have to buy into the reincarnation or other stuff like that to benefit.
2012-10-27 11:27:15 AM  
1 vote:

bugontherug: Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.


Pretty much this.

Right the the 'groundswell' of support for Romney is the Republican base trying to make a half-hearted attempt to back their candidate. That way when Romney loses, they can deflect any questions that come back to their enthusiasm. The reality is that the Republican base had a few months to either back Romney or piss about, and they did the latter. It's on their hatred of Obama (and nonwhite people) that is really pushing this pathetic horserace narrative.
2012-10-27 11:26:11 AM  
1 vote:

randomjsa: So liberals are saying Obama is going to lose in 2012? Because if Rasmussen is correct...


actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?
2012-10-27 11:25:58 AM  
1 vote:
The unskewed polls guy has a statistically significant higher number of chins than Nate Silver.
2012-10-27 11:24:28 AM  
1 vote:

gingerjet: I don't get it. All one has to do is wait until the election to see if Nate is correct or not. Why all the butthurt now?


It's that special brand of cognitive dissonance that manifests itself in the mind of someone who knows his guy/team/whatever is probably going to lose, but who has no ability to respond to a loss with any sort of honesty, let alone dignity.
2012-10-27 11:16:14 AM  
1 vote:
Ten more days. That's all. In ten days all will be revealed. Between now and then, I will enjoy the super-storm news coverage as it interrupts the campaign coverage. Clearly, even god is pissed at how long this whole campaign is taking.
2012-10-27 11:03:28 AM  
1 vote:
Nate Silver can't be trusted because when he talks, he kinda sounds gay. But Dick Morris can be trusted because in this guy's world, Dick Morris doesn't sound gay? I know he was busted for sucking a female hooker's toes, but that guy really sounds gay.
2012-10-27 11:01:39 AM  
1 vote:

Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


its not just a close race, I listen to POTUS radio a lot (Politics Of The United States for the People Of The United States for people who dont pay attention to XM) a reasonably unbiased station over all and they werent just going with it was a close race but they were going over the gallup poll and talking to people on the ground reporting what they saw as a genuine swell of support for Mitt Romney, and were openly questioning whether Obama should try and fight it out or make some kind of grand last stand on his principles because he knew he was going to be beat and wanted to try and frame his legacy.


this was just a day or two mind, so after all the mitt-mentum had died out in the polls.
2012-10-27 10:57:15 AM  
1 vote:
Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.
2012-10-27 10:57:04 AM  
1 vote:

themindiswatching: log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.

UnskewedPolls was always right. It's just that the damn liberal voter fraud was too great to overcome or something.

/awaits statisticals


But will the statisticals be harmonized?
2012-10-27 10:54:07 AM  
1 vote:

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


But you are using the effeminate guys numbers, so your argument is invalid. And that guy that agrees with him is named Wang, so...
2012-10-27 09:59:58 AM  
1 vote:

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...
2012-10-27 08:53:34 AM  
1 vote:

MorrisBird: log_jammin: wow.

To be fair, he's on pain medication. His pelvis is broken in 6 places.


Definitely a good time to hit him up for that raise, while he is still woozy from the drugs.
2012-10-27 08:41:25 AM  
1 vote:

Endrick: The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win.


I'm not sure a statistical tie is a profound shift.
2012-10-27 05:13:11 AM  
1 vote:

Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.


When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a falling out (mother = Italian Catholic / father = German Lutheran). Religion was always by my choice only. I attended a Christian bible school by choice, and quit going by my choice. I attended mass sometimes and youth group because I liked the kids who went to that church. Ultimately I chose to eschew religion and I claim agnostic.

But I can tell you there are cons to being agnostic or religiously void. I feel I am by nature a spiritual person, and I never found a satisfactory outlet for that spirituality. And the older I get the more I feel like I'm missing that outlet.

\I'm sure what I've said was less then helpful -sorry
2012-10-27 04:30:55 AM  
1 vote:

Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.


You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.
2012-10-27 04:05:24 AM  
1 vote:

Osomatic: They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


I've noticed that too.

themindiswatching: log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.

UnskewedPolls was always right. It's just that the damn liberal voter fraud was too great to overcome or something.

/awaits statisticals


Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report